Total Pageviews

Sunday, November 18, 2007

It’s hard for any biography of Hugo Chávez to avoid a tendency toward either hagiography or venom.In ¡Hugo! Bart Jones, who is openly sympathetic to Chávez, does a good job of examining Chávez’s life and actions from a variety of perspectives.I recommend it and so put it on the side bar.

The weakest parts are actually those in which he takes pains to defend Chávez, as such parts seem more forced. Jones equates endless talking on radio and TV with governmental “transparency,” early in the book long passages come from books of Chávez discussions, so that his ideological development comes out as purity personified, he is compared to George Washington, etc.This actually gets in the way of an otherwise very compelling story of a man who (unlike his heroes Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, or even Simón Bolívar himself) grew up in poverty and, through the forces of conviction, personality, and unbelievable energy, catapulted himself onto a national stage to fight against a corrupt socio-economic system.

The best narrative parts are the 1992 coup attempts and the 2002 coup, which read like a thriller.Jones brings to life the passions of both sides and does not shy away from discussing the missteps Chávez makes.He also discusses the many allies of Chávez who ultimately opposed him, though I think this deserves more directed attention to see what patterns emerge regarding Chávez’s disputes over power, ideology, and personality.

The book makes a strong argument for bias in the U.S. media against Chávez, yet I would guess about 75% of the citations come from that same media (Jones himself is a reporter).There is, in fact, very little from Venezuelan media, either pro or anti-Chávez.So you can, it seems, write a book that casts Chávez in a largely positive light by using newspapers in the United States.

10
comments:

The book makes a strong argument for bias in the U.S. media against Chávez, yet I would guess about 75% of the citations come from that same media (Jones himself is a reporter). There is, in fact, very little from Venezuelan media, either pro or anti-Chávez. So you can, it seems, write a book that casts Chávez in a largely positive light by using newspapers in the United States.

Yes, but the comment is rather deceptive, I think. Indeed, if you're a fanatic who reads a ton of U.S. reporting about Venezuela, you could cull from such reporting bits of information here and there that could be used to cast the Chavez government in a more positive light, but these bits of information are quite peripheral to the overall picture presented in U.S. media. To celebrate the fact that there are bits of submerged information within U.S. media that are inconsistent with the broader picture presented sounds a lot like apologetics for what the U.S. press does. In reality, the U.S. press suppresses a hell of a lot of important information, and there really is no excuse for that.

very compelling story of a man who (unlike his heroes Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, or even Simón Bolívar himself) grew up in poverty and, through the forces of conviction, personality, and unbelievable energy, catapulted himself onto a national stage to fight against a corrupt socio-economic system."

That seems to be a bit over the top. The very "corrupt socio-economic" system he fought seemed to work well enough in the 60's and the 70's to educate an ambitious kid from a modest family in the llanos. And this was hardly limited to the military academies, Chavez brothers managed to also get a college education.

That seems to be a bit over the top. The very "corrupt socio-economic" system he fought seemed to work well enough in the 60's and the 70's to educate an ambitious kid from a modest family in the llanos. And this was hardly limited to the military academies, Chavez brothers managed to also get a college education.

I think Boli-Nica is right that, if we put Venezuela of the 1960s and '70s into comparative perspective, we find that it was less inegalitarian than most of the rest of Latin America.

It's not the system of the '60s and '70s that brought down the fourth Republic. It's the mass impoverishment of Venezuela in the '80s and '90s that brought the system down. The mix of mass impoverishment, CAP's disastrous turn toward neoliberalism, and the corruption that had always existed created a politically and socially explosive situation. Chavismo is a product of that explosion, as Chavez himself readily admits.

It's not the system of the '60s and '70s that brought down the fourth Republic. It's the mass impoverishment of Venezuela in the '80s and '90s that brought the system down. .

It was the very nature of the system of the 60's and the 70's that caused the implosion in the 80's and 90's. The government - alternating between two parties - spread oil rent to cronies, friendly business, subsidized food and gas. The State was essentially colonized, and turned into a make work factory for the middle class. The system worked while the price of oil was high. But, there were real, long-term gains, due to better health care, investment in infraestructure, education, and health care. PDVSA turned into a world class company.

The problem with this classic rentist economy was that it was unsustainable when prices of oil lowered. Blaming the "neo-liberalism" bogeyman is a major cop-out. First of all, the distortions in the Venezuelan economy due to government policies like price controls and subsidies were crazy. CAP messed up by not having political support in his own legislature and perhaps in doing it too suddenly, but the economic reality was pretty clear. And in general - and this is something most sane economists agree on- Venezuela was the country where the least amount of "Washington Consensus" reforms were carried out. Some of CAP's earlier reforms were abandoned once oil prices went up after Gulf War v 1.0., by 94 little was left. What did survive, and did work, was the administrative decentralization.

Blaming the "neo-liberalism" bogeyman is a major cop-out. First of all, the distortions in the Venezuelan economy due to government policies like price controls and subsidies were crazy. CAP messed up by not having political support in his own legislature and perhaps in doing it too suddenly, but the economic reality was pretty clear.

The proof is in the pudding, Boli-Nica. If you launch a set of "reforms" that impose heavy immediate costs on the poor and thereby set off mass riots, you've fucked up. And if you then send the military in to put down the riots (and kill hundreds of people in the process), you've really fucked up.

Until you learn the basic political lessons, all the Washington Consensus' jibber jabber will just addle your brain.